DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards a Taxonomy of Aspect-Oriented Programming. Mario Bernard Hankerson East Tennessee State University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 12-2003 Towards a Taxonomy of Aspect-Oriented Programming. Mario Bernard Hankerson East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Hankerson, Mario Bernard, "Towards a Taxonomy of Aspect-Oriented Programming." (2003). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 851. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/851 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Towards a Taxonomy of Aspect-Oriented Programming A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of Computer and Information Sciences East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science in Computer Science by Mario B. Hankerson December 2003 Dr. Martin L. Barrett, Chair Steven L. Jenkins Jeffrey W. A. Roach Keywords: Aspect-Oriented Programming, AOP, Aspects, Components, Concerns, Crosscutting Concerns, Join Points, Object-Oriented Programming, OOP, Post-Object Programming, POP, Separation of Concerns, Taxonomy, Weaving ABSTRACT TOWARDS A TAXONOMY OF Aspect-Oriented Programming by Mario B. Hankerson As programs continue to increase in size, it has become increasingly difficult to separate concerns into well localized modules, which leads to code tangling- crosscutting code spread throughout several modules. Thus, aspect-oriented programming (AOP) offers a solution to creating modules with little or no crosscutting concerns. AOP presents the notion of aspects, and demonstrates how crosscutting concerns can be taken out of modules and placed in a centralized location. In this paper, a taxonomy of aspect-oriented programming, as well as a basic overview and introduction of AOP, will be presented in order to assist future researchers in getting started on additional research on the topic. To form the taxonomy, over four-hundred research articles were organized into fifteen different primary categories coupled with sub-categories, which show where some of the past research has been focused. In addition, trends of the research were evaluated and paths for future exploration are suggested. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Most importantly, I would like to thank God for assisting me during this challenging and sometimes daunting process, which has been emotionally and physically draining. Nevertheless, finishing the AOP thesis has proven to be an exhilarating liberation. I would like to give thanks to my committee members, Dr. Barrett, Steven Jenkins, and Jeffery Roach, for their continued support in helping me to achieve my goals. In addition, I would like to honor a few high caliber friends and intellectual scholars of exceptional acumen, i.e., Dr. Gordon Bailes Jr., Robert Nielsen, and Dr. Phillip Pfeiffer IV, for helping me to realize my competencies and improve on my inadequacies as a computer scientist and person. To Dr. Barrett: I am grateful for everything you have done for me and I truly appreciate your patience and honesty. To Steven: I am forever indebted to you for directing me towards my thesis topic, and the days of personal counsel, which enabled me to determine the appropriate way to handle certain life situations. To Jeffery: Thank you for your continuous support and encouragement during this process. To Dr. Bailes: I can not adequately express how much your data structures course changed my attitude about academia and the importance of due diligence. Thank you so very much for helping me understand Sir Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion, specifically his third law in the context of computer science and its correlation to intolerable indolent behaviors as a student. 3 To Robert: A man of unquestionable ethics, morals, and values, whom I admire and strive to emulate. I am grateful to you Mr. Nielsen for offering countless tidbits of ageless wisdom, and dialogue about life and philosophical issues, which kept me grounded in reality during this tedious process. In addition, you are a great friend, particularly for allowing me to mount my “soap box” and discuss all the frustration and successes encountered throughout the many phases of this research. Lastly, the time spent working with you as an assistant system administrator has taught me invaluable information about professionalism. To Dr. Pfeiffer: The dedication you possess and demonstrate toward your work has profoundly influenced me. You remain the single most pedagogical scholar I attempt to simulate throughout my academic experiences and personal life. Furthermore, you have helped me to realize and maximize my full potential as a computer scientist. Finally, I would like to say thanks for challenging me to become a better person, programmer, and student. To My Family: Thanks for believing in me and continually encouraging me to aspire to new heights academically, personally, and professionally. To Chasity: This research process was truly made bearable and easier to handle due to your constant encouragement and abilities for lifting my spirits. Additionally, the times we have spent together will always be cherished, for you have helped me to accept, discover, and realize who I am in this dynamic world. Lastly, thanks for helping me to broaden my horizons, and become a more complete individual. The circle is almost complete and hopefully it will not be undone- lest time and efforts would be for naught. There are not enough words to express my heartfelt thanks and appreciation for all that everyone has done on my behalf, so I will simply say- I love and respect you all from the depths of my inner being. Moreover, all of the persons acknowledged have assisted me in becoming a 4 better researcher and person in some capacity by helping me understand that tough times are not that tough, and that problems are really hidden opportunities. 5 CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ 9 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. 10 Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 11 From OOP to AOP..................................................................................................... 12 Building Towards an AOP Taxonomy ...................................................................... 14 Background ......................................................................................................... 14 Overview.................................................................................................................... 15 2. WHAT IS ASPECT-ORIENTED PROGRAMMING ................................................. 16 Primary Concepts of Aspect-Oriented Programming................................................ 17 Concerns .............................................................................................................. 17 Crosscutting Concerns................................................................................... 18 Separation of Concerns.................................................................................. 18 Aspects and Components........................................................................................... 19 Join Points and Weaving............................................................................................ 20 Summary.................................................................................................................... 21 3. TAXONOMY ............................................................................................................... 23 The Taxonomy Process ............................................................................................. 23 Method ....................................................................................................................... 24 6 The AOP Categorization Model ................................................................................ 27 Category Descriptions ......................................................................................... 28 Concerns ........................................................................................................ 28 Adaptive......................................................................................................... 29 Limitations ..................................................................................................... 29 Experiential and Case Study.......................................................................... 29 Performance and Reliability.......................................................................... 29 Distributed Systems ....................................................................................... 29 Theory...........................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • A Brief Introduction to Aspect-Oriented Programming

    A Brief Introduction to Aspect-Oriented Programming

    R R R A Brief Introduction to Aspect-Oriented Programming" R R Historical View Of Languages" R •# Procedural language" •# Functional language" •# Object-Oriented language" 1 R R Acknowledgements" R •# Zhenxiao Yang" •# Gregor Kiczales" •# Eclipse website for AspectJ (www.eclipse.org/aspectj) " R R Procedural Language" R •# Also termed imperative language" •# Describe" –#An explicit sequence of steps to follow to produce a result" •# Examples: Basic, Pascal, C, Fortran" 2 R R Functional Language" R •# Describe everything as a function (e.g., data, operations)" •# (+ 3 4); (add (prod 4 5) 3)" •# Examples" –# LISP, Scheme, ML, Haskell" R R Logical Language" R •# Also termed declarative language" •# Establish causal relationships between terms" –#Conclusion :- Conditions" –#Read as: If Conditions then Conclusion" •# Examples: Prolog, Parlog" 3 R R Object-Oriented Programming" R •# Describe " –#A set of user-defined objects " –#And communications among them to produce a (user-defined) result" •# Basic features" –#Encapsulation" –#Inheritance" –#Polymorphism " R R OOP (cont$d)" R •# Example languages" –#First OOP language: SIMULA-67 (1970)" –#Smalltalk, C++, Java" –#Many other:" •# Ada, Object Pascal, Objective C, DRAGOON, BETA, Emerald, POOL, Eiffel, Self, Oblog, ESP, POLKA, Loops, Perl, VB" •# Are OOP languages procedural? " 4 R R We Need More" R •# Major advantage of OOP" –# Modular structure" •# Potential problems with OOP" –# Issues distributed in different modules result in tangled code." –# Example: error logging, failure handling, performance
  • An Aggregate Computing Approach to Self-Stabilizing Leader Election

    An Aggregate Computing Approach to Self-Stabilizing Leader Election

    An Aggregate Computing Approach to Self-Stabilizing Leader Election Yuanqiu Mo Jacob Beal Soura Dasgupta University of Iowa Raytheon BBN Technologies University of Iowa⇤ Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Cambridge, MA, USA 02138 Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Abstract—Leader election is one of the core coordination 4" problems of distributed systems, and has been addressed in 3" 1" many different ways suitable for different classes of systems. It is unclear, however, whether existing methods will be effective 7" 1" for resilient device coordination in open, complex, networked 3" distributed systems like smart cities, tactical networks, personal 3" 0" networks and the Internet of Things (IoT). Aggregate computing 2" provides a layered approach to developing such systems, in which resilience is provided by a layer comprising a set of (a) G block (b) C block (c) T block adaptive algorithms whose compositions have been shown to cover a large class of coordination activities. In this paper, Fig. 1. Illustration of three basis block operators: (a) information-spreading (G), (b) information aggregation (C), and (c) temporary state (T) we show how a feedback interconnection of these basis set algorithms can perform distributed leader election resilient to device topology and position changes. We also characterize a key design parameter that defines some important performance a separation of concerns into multiple abstraction layers, much attributes: Too large a value impairs resilience to loss of existing like the OSI model for communication [2], factoring the leaders, while too small a value leads to multiple leaders.
  • Weaving Ontology Aspects Using a Catalog of Structural Ontology Design Patterns

    Weaving Ontology Aspects Using a Catalog of Structural Ontology Design Patterns

    Weaving Ontology Aspects Using a Catalog of Structural Ontology Design Patterns Ralph Schäfermeier and Adrian Paschke Corporate Semantic Web Group, Institute of Computer Science, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany {schaef,paschke}@inf.fu-berlin.de http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de Abstract. Modular development of ontologies proves beneficial at dif- ferent stages of the ontology lifecycle. In our previous work, we proposed aspect-oriented ontology development as a flexible approach to modular ontology development and a-posteriori modularization of existing mono- lithic ontologies, inspired by aspect-oriented programming and based on so called cross-cutting concerns. Similar to other formalisms for mod- ular ontologies (e.g. E-Connections), aspect-oriented ontologies rely on an extension of the used ontology language. This derivation from the standard in turn requires specially adapted tools in order to use these ontologies in applications. In this paper, we present an approach to the recombination of aspect-oriented ontology modules to standard OWL 2 ontologies by using an aspect-weaving service. The weaving service relies on a preconfigured catalog of structural ontology design patterns. We show that the use of the weaving service yields syntactically correct and semantically complete ontologies while still allowing ontology developers to fully benefit from modular ontology development. Keywords: Aspect-Oriented Ontology Development, Aspect-Oriented Programming, Ontology Modularization, Ontology Design Patterns 1 Introduction Modular ontology development has proved beneficial when it comes to improve- ment of reasoning and query result retrieval performance, scalability for ontol- ogy evolution and maintenance, complexity management, amelioration of un- derstandability, reuse, context-awareness, and personalization [17]. A significant amount of research work has been dedicated in the field of ontology modular- ization, and various kinds of approaches tackle the problem from different per- spectives.
  • A Theory of Fault Recovery for Component-Based Models⋆

    A Theory of Fault Recovery for Component-Based Models⋆

    A Theory of Fault Recovery for Component-based Models? Borzoo Bonakdarpour1, Marius Bozga2, and Gregor G¨ossler3 1 School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo Email: [email protected] 2 VERIMAG/CNRS, Gieres, France Email: [email protected] 3 INRIA-Grenoble, Montbonnot, France Email: [email protected] Abstract. This paper introduces a theory of fault recovery for component- based models. We specify a model in terms of a set of atomic components incrementally composed and synchronized by a set of glue operators. We define what it means for such models to provide a recovery mechanism, so that the model converges to its normal behavior in the presence of faults (e.g., in self-stabilizing systems). We present a sufficient condition for in- crementally composing components to obtain models that provide fault recovery. We identify corrector components whose presence in a model is essential to guarantee recovery after the occurrence of faults. We also for- malize component-based models that effectively separate recovery from functional concerns. We also show that any model that provides fault recovery can be transformed into an equivalent model, where functional and recovery tasks are modularized in different components. Keywords: Fault-tolerance; Transformation; Separation of concerns; BIP 1 Introduction Fault-tolerance has always been an active line of research in design and imple- mentation of dependable systems. Intuitively, tolerating faults involves providing a system with the means to handle unexpected defects, so that the system meets its specification even in the presence of faults. In this context, the notion of spec- ification may vary depending upon the guarantees that the system must deliver in the presence of faults.
  • The Inheritance Anomaly Revisited

    The Inheritance Anomaly Revisited

    The Inheritance Anomaly Revisited Ryan J. Wisnesky August 2006 Contents Contents i Preface ii Introduction 1 1 The Inheritance Anomaly and Formal Framework 2 1.1 An Overview of the Inheritance Anomaly . 2 1.2 An Overview of the Framework . 4 2 History-based Guard Languages 7 2.1 History-based guard languages . 7 2.2 Two tweaks . 8 2.2.1 The first tweak: Behavior Preservation . 8 2.2.2 The second tweak: Patching the Proof . 10 2.3 Discussion . 13 2.4 Related Work and Future Directions . 13 2.5 Conclusion . 15 3 Intra-object Concurrency 16 3.1 Methods and Messages . 16 3.1.1 New synchronization constructs . 17 3.1.2 Synchronization, Methods, and Messages . 18 3.2 New Types . 19 3.2.1 Mutual Exclusion: TypesS ............................ 20 3.2.2 Mutual Exclusion and Containment: TypesS .................. 24 3.2.3 TypesT,S ...................................... 25 3.3 Conclusion and Related Work . 27 4 Specification Languages 28 5 Overall Conclusion, Future Directions, and a Note on Typing 29 6 Related Work 30 6.1 Core Papers . 30 i 6.2 Concurrent Formal Systems . 31 6.3 Anomaly Avoidance Mechanisms . 33 6.4 Anomaly Generalizations . 36 6.5 Anomaly Experiences . 36 6.6 Surveys . 37 6.7 Aspect-Oriented Programming . 37 6.8 Others............................................ 38 Bibliography 41 ii Introduction The Inheritance Anomaly has been a thorn in the side of the concurrent object-oriented language community for 15 years. Simply put, the anomaly is a failure of inheritance and concurrency to work well with each other, negating the usefulness of inheritance as a mechanism for code-reuse in a concurrent setting.
  • Aspectj in Action, Second Edition

    Aspectj in Action, Second Edition

    Introducing AspectJ This chapter covers ■ Writing an AspectJ “Hello, world!” application ■ Becoming familiar with the AspectJ language ■ Weaving mechanisms ■ Integrating with Spring In chapter 1, we focused on general concepts in AOP. With those behind us, we can now look at one specific AOP implementation: AspectJ. AspectJ is an aspect- oriented extension to the Java programming language. Like any AOP implementa- tion, AspectJ consists of two parts: the language specification, which defines the grammar and semantics of the language; and the language implementation, which includes weavers that take various forms such as a compiler and a linker. A weaver produces byte code that conforms to the Java byte-code specification, allowing any compliant Java virtual machine (VM) to execute those class files. The language implementation also offers support for integrated development environments (IDEs), to simplify building and debugging applications. AspectJ started and initially grew as a special language that extends the Java lan- guage with new keywords. It also provided a special compiler that could understand those extensions. But recently, a lot has changed in its form as a language, as well as 27 Licensed to Manning Marketing <[email protected]> 28 CHAPTER 2 Introducing AspectJ in the weaver. First, AspectJ offers an alternative syntax based on the Java annotation facil- ity to express crosscutting constructs. This lets you use a plain Java compiler instead of the special compiler. Second, AspectJ offers new options for weaving classes with aspects. Finally, it has gained a strong foothold in the Spring Framework with several integration options. All these changes have made adoption of AspectJ easier than ever before.
  • Aspect-Oriented Software Development for Real-Time and Internet Applications

    Aspect-Oriented Software Development for Real-Time and Internet Applications

    International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 05 Issue: 09 | Sep 2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 Aspect-Oriented Software Development for Real-Time and Internet Applications Ogbonna J. C.1, Nwokoma F. O.2, Nwala K. T.3, Nwandu I. C.4 1,3Reseacher, Dept. of Computer Science, Clifford University Owerrinta, Abia State Nigeria 2,4Reseacher, Dept. of Computer Science, Federal University of Technology Owerri, Imo State Nigeria ---------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract - Software development evolution has introduced and increasing the reusability of a software product, which a number of useful software development methods. Efficient in turns results in better software development. modularization of program artifacts that cut across multiple AOP is based on the idea that computer systems are better locations during software development called crosscutting programmed by separately specifying the various concerns concerns have been a major drawback for these software (properties or areas of interest) of a system and some development methods including the almighty Object-Oriented description of their relationships, and then relying on Software Development method. Concerns like recovery, mechanisms in the underlying AOP environment to weave or synchronization, logging, encryption, authentication, compose them together into a coherent program (Elrad, authorization, validation, verification,
  • Cs8603-Distributed Systems Syllabus Unit 3 Distributed Mutex & Deadlock Distributed Mutual Exclusion Algorithms: Introducti

    Cs8603-Distributed Systems Syllabus Unit 3 Distributed Mutex & Deadlock Distributed Mutual Exclusion Algorithms: Introducti

    CS8603-DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS SYLLABUS UNIT 3 DISTRIBUTED MUTEX & DEADLOCK Distributed mutual exclusion algorithms: Introduction – Preliminaries – Lamport‘s algorithm –Ricart-Agrawala algorithm – Maekawa‘s algorithm – Suzuki–Kasami‘s broadcast algorithm. Deadlock detection in distributed systems: Introduction – System model – Preliminaries –Models of deadlocks – Knapp‘s classification – Algorithms for the single resource model, the AND model and the OR Model DISTRIBUTED MUTUAL EXCLUSION ALGORITHMS: INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION MUTUAL EXCLUSION : Mutual exclusion is a fundamental problem in distributed computing systems. Mutual exclusion ensures that concurrent access of processes to a shared resource or data is serialized, that is, executed in a mutually exclusive manner. Mutual exclusion in a distributed system states that only one process is allowed to execute the critical section (CS) at any given time. In a distributed system, shared variables (semaphores) or a local kernel cannot be used to implement mutual exclusion. There are three basic approaches for implementing distributed mutual exclusion: 1. Token-based approach. 2. Non-token-based approach. 3. Quorum-based approach. In the token-based approach, a unique token (also known as the PRIVILEGE message) is shared among the sites. A site is allowed to enter its CS if it possesses the token and it continues to hold the token until the execution of the CS is over. Mutual exclusion is ensured because the token is unique. In the non-token-based approach, two or more successive rounds of messages are exchanged among the sites to determine which site will enter the CS next. Mutual exclusion is enforced because the assertion becomes true only at one site at any given time.
  • Model-Based Aspect Weaver Construction

    Model-Based Aspect Weaver Construction

    Model-based Aspect Weaver Construction Suman Roychoudhury1, Frédéric Jouault2,1, and Jeff Gray1 1 University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294 {roychous, gray}@cis.uab.edu 2 ATLAS group (INRIA & LINA), University of Nantes, France [email protected] Abstract. This paper describes an approach that combines model engineering with program transformation techniques to construct aspect weavers for general-purpose programming languages. The front-end of the weaver uses a high-level language (i.e., an aspect language) to specify aspects and is designed with a metamodel-based approach using the AMMA toolsuite. The back-end of the weaver uses transformation rules, which are generated from these high-level aspect specifications, to perform the actual low-level weaving. Both the aspect specification (front-end) and transformation rules (back-end) are captured as models within the AMMA platform. The translation from source aspect model to target transformation model is achieved using ATL, which is a model transformation language. Keywords: model transformation, program transformation, model engineering, aspect-oriented-programming, software engineering. 1 Introduction Program transformation systems have been used in the past to construct aspect weavers for programming languages [1]. Program transformation engines (PTEs) such as the Design Maintenance System (DMS) [2], or ASF+SDF [3], provide direct availability of scalable parsers and an underlying low-level transformation framework to modify source programs. This low-level transformation framework (that generally uses term-rewriting or graph-rewriting techniques to modify base code) can form the basis of constructing aspect weavers [4]. In our previous research, we demonstrated how a term-rewriting PTE like DMS can be used to construct an aspect weaver for a general-purpose programming language (GPL) like ObjectPascal [1].
  • The Inheritance Anomaly: Ten Years After

    The Inheritance Anomaly: Ten Years After

    The inheritance anomaly: ten years after Giuseppe Milicia Vladimiro Sassone Chi Spaces Technologies ltd. University of Sussex, UK Cambridge, UK [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Clearly we must make sure that no object is removed from an The term inheritance anomaly was coined in 1993 by Matsuoka empty buffer and that no object is inserted into a full buffer. In a and Yonezawa [15] to refer to the problems arising by the coexis- sequential setting, the burden of ensuring such constraints resides tence of inheritance and concurrency in concurrent object oriented with the buffer’s user. Indeed the buffer is created and used by languages (COOLs). The quirks arising by such combination have one thread only, which is responsible for the state of the object. been observed since the early eighties, when the first experimen- To facilitate usage, the buffer’s methods might return certain er- tal COOLs were designed [3]. In the nineties COOLs turned from ror codes in case of misuse. This approach is not feasible in a research topic to widely used tools in the everyday programming concurrent setting. The buffer will be used concurrently by mul- practice, see e.g. the Java [9] experience. This expository paper ex- tiple clients, leaving each of them no idea on the buffer’s current tends the survey presented in [15] to account for new and widely state. Although it is possible to envisage ad-hoc protocols among used COOLs, most notably Java and C] [19]. Specifically, we il- clients to keep track of the buffer’s state, such a solution is com- lustrate some innovative approaches to COOL design relying on plex and hardly feasible in practice.
  • Source-Code Instrumentation and Quantification of Events Robert E

    Source-Code Instrumentation and Quantification of Events Robert E

    Source-Code Instrumentation and Quantification of Events Robert E. Filman Klaus Havelund RIACS Kestrel Technology NASA Ames Research Center, MS 269/2 NASA Ames Research Center, MS 269/2 Moffett Field, CA 94035 U.S.A. Moffett Field, CA 94035 U.S.A +1 650–604–1250 +1 650–604–3366 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT particularly with respect to debugging and validating concurrent Aspect-Oriented Programming is making quantified programmatic systems. assertions over programs that otherwise are not annotated to 2. EVENTS receive these assertions. Varieties of AOP systems are Quantification implies matching a predicate about a program. characterized by which quantified assertions they allow, what they Such a predicate must be over some domain. In the permit in the actions of the assertions (including how the actions quantification/implicit invocation papers, we distinguished interact with the base code), and what mechanisms they use to between static and dynamic quantification. achieve the overall effect. Here, we argue that all quantification is over dynamic events, and describe our preliminary work in Static quantification worked over the structure of the program. developing a system that maps dynamic events to transformations That is, with static quantification, one could reference the over source code. We discuss possible applications of this system, programming language structures in a system. Examples of such particularly with respect to debugging concurrent systems. structures include reference to program variables, calls to subprograms, loops, and conditional tests. Categories and Subject Descriptors Many common AOP implementation techniques can be D.3.3 [Programming Languages]: Language Constructs and understood in terms of quantified program manipulation on the Features – aspects.
  • Separation of Concerns in Multi-Language Specifications

    Separation of Concerns in Multi-Language Specifications

    INFORMATICA, 2002, Vol. 13, No. 3, 255–274 255 2002 Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius Separation of Concerns in Multi-language Specifications Robertas DAMAŠEVICIUS,ˇ Vytautas ŠTUIKYS Software Engineering Department, Kaunas University of Technology Student¸u 50, 3031 Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Received: April 2002 Abstract. We present an analysis of the separation of concerns in multi-language design and multi- language specifications. The basis for our analysis is the paradigm of the multi-dimensional sepa- ration of concerns, which claims that multiple dimensions of concerns in a design should be imple- mented independently. Multi-language specifications are specifications where different concerns of a design are implemented using separate languages as follows. (1) Target language(s) implement domain functionality. (2) External (or scripting, meta-) language(s) implement generalisation of the repetitive design features, introduce variations, and integrate components into a design. We present case studies and experimental results for the application of the multi-language specifications in hardware design. Key words: multi-language design, separation of concerns, meta-programming, scripting, hardwa- re design. 1. Introduction Today the high-level design of a hardware (HW) system is usually based either on the usage of the pure HW description language (HDL) (e.g., VHDL, Verilog), or the algo- rithmic one (e.g., C++, SystemC), or both. The emerging problems are similar for both, the HW and software (SW) domains. For example, the increasing complexity of SW and HW designs urges the designers and researchers to seek for the new design methodolo- gies.